MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 December 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028489

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES: He makes no statement.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

He was born on 11 November 1944.  He completed 12 years of formal education. 
On 22 August 1967, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  On 3 August 1970, the applicant was honorably discharged.  However, his record shows that he had 69 days of lost time during the first enlistment.  On 4 August 1970, the applicant reenlisted for 3 years after serving 2 years, 9 months and 3 days of active military service.  The highest grade achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 10 May 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for unlawfully striking a soldier on the shoulder and arm with the upper half of a pool stick.  His imposed punishment was 7 days
extra duty and 7 days restriction.

On 6 November 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave from 16 November 1972 to 2 November 1973.

On 12 November 1973, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily
requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but he declined to do so.

A physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.

On 13 December 1973, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 
17 January 1974, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had 5 years, 3 months and 1 day of creditable active service and 351 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the 
satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trail by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__tnk___  __eb____  __mdm___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028489	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740117	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10  .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.